Containment versus Pre-emptive Deterrence and Regime Change

Self ^ | 3/17/2003 | MHGinTN

[MHGinTN]

Containment versus Pre-emptive Deterrence and Regime Change

Today, in The British House of Commons, an insulting little man named Cook asserted that had Al Gore been sworn in as President, the world would not now be facing the prospect of war in the Middle East.

Poor Mister Cook was defending the policy of containment through inspections. Containment without muscle on the ground to back it up, when dealing with despotic demons like Saddam Hussein, is a fool’s errand … or worse, an exercise in delayed suicide, for expedience sake. But that’s what appeasement and postponement have usually meant.

Aside from the bitter irrationality of raising the United States elections as an excuse for Saddam’s twelve-year defiance of agreed to terms in the 1991 cease-fire, and aside from the irrationality of implying different tactics of a failed politician from two previous terms in office, this alcoholic Brit points to an issue that should be addressed, immediately, before the obstructionists in America gain further traction with this foolishness.

What of containment, the Clinton administration’s chosen policy toward Iraq and terrorism? Has it worked? Would it work as a future policy in a worldwide war against terrorism by fanatical Islamicists? For Chirac and too many American politicians in and out of office, containment of terrorist sponsoring states is still the policy to follow. That’s why they so adamantly pushed the inspections regime; they calculate that leaving rogue regimes in power but containing those regimes through inspections can effectively deal with the threat posed by terrorist organization worldwide.

First, let’s be clear: abject failure at containment leads directly to such horrific tragedies as Kobar Towers, and the World Trade Center bombings, and the Bali bombing, and the USS Cole bombing, and the suicide murders on Israeli buses and in Israeli markets and restaurants, and bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa, and … and you get the picture. Terrorists networks must have a country in which to be trained, and which under gird their finances and documents of identity.

Can failure of Iraqi containment be tied to the horror of 9/11/2001? YES! And to many other terrorist acts around the world.

While the Clinton administration pursued a policy of hit-and-miss containment, the Iraqi secret service sent officers into Afghanistan, to train al Qaeda operatives in the production and use of biological and chemical weapons. All during the Clinton administrations policy of containment and inspections in Iraq, Saddam maintained a research facility at Salman Pak, developing chemical and biological weapons. Salman Pak was also maintained as a training camp, where operatives from several terrorist organizations received training in hijacking modern airliners with no more armament than sharp knives, received training in the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets, received training in forgery and robbery as a means to maintain their presence in foreign countries, and received training in assassination methods.

Containment, at least as practiced by the previous administration, didn’t work. It was a feckless diversion from the truth that this nation can no longer afford to ignore: containment without force does not work to safeguard the civilian populations of nations that terrorists choose to target. And yet, there are vocal politicians in America still trying to push this approach by various means. They will not shut up until this feckless strategy is exposed and debated into rejection.

What of pre-emptive deterrence coupled with regime change? Well, when directed at the states sponsoring terrorists in order to employ them as weapons against other nations, it is the only thing that does work … as we have begun to prove with the Taliban’s sponsorship for al Qaeda, and we are about to discover regarding Iraq.

[jwalsh07]

Good screed Marvin.

Containment is 20th century non solution to a 21st century problem.

These people can't get out of the box long enough to see that. You can;t contain and you can't deter terrorists. You have to fumigate their dens, do your bet to cut off the WMD supply lines and kill them as far away from the states as possible.

[MHGinTN]

Ping-ka-ching

[MHGinTN]

Thank you ... I could contain my ire no longer!

[MHGinTN]

Ping, especially to the letter in #12, blam.

[MHGinTN]

Kerping. Note the date on the letter in post #12!

[MHGinTN]

Ping mate!

[unspun]

"American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." bump.

Thanks for your commentary, too. While it may be said that the liberation of Iraq is preventative, by the surrender (read "truce") of 1991, it is also simply a corrective resumption of the war against Iraq provoked by their invasion of Kuwait.

Would that nations had driven Hitler back from the Sudatenland in the late 30's, then invaded Germany after the violations of terms that would likely have occurred by Germany after this.

Many have said such things; I'm simply adding my name to the list.

[MHGinTN]

Ping ... I didn't realize someone had posted the 1998 letter to clinton as a thread at FR. Can't seem to get to everything ...

[MHGinTN]

Good points! Res 678 and 687 are all that is really neded to decapitate Saddam. SinkEmperor's effect on Tony Blair is finally wearing off. The U.N. fiasco may yet prove to be a blessing. Tony may end up being the major force of the Euro, deposing the graft-laden Chiraq.

[MHGinTN]

Ping-a-ling-a-ling

[MHGinTN]

Ping

[MHGinTN]

Ping, FYI revisited, since a link is not found on the right margin of the browse page.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[Calpernia]

Debate? I see nothing to debate you on. That was well thought out and well written. I hope no one opposes you on this thread today. I think I am drained at this point.

[Peach]

Awesome and undeniable.

[MHGinTN]

ping to Cooks remark and a missive.

[unspun]

Yes, and I'm glad that we are not taking action to liberate Iraq under the "banner" of the UN. The high authority we have in America is the authority of its sovereign People -- certainly no foreign or global power.

[wayoverontheright]

Excellent!! Well reasoned and in my view, timely and correct.

If you are saying that containment ceased to be an option on 9-11, I think you are on the money.

Those who are saying that Saddam is harmless because his missiles won't go far enough to do us harm must be brain dead. All he would have to do is provide one of his WMDs to someone like al-Qaeda, and he could remain anonymous. There is no containment for that eventuality.

[MHGinTN]

What got me to address this specious concept of 'containment' was the issue under girding the following assertion: What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops. Robin Cook, British House of Commons, 17 March. 2003. He was implying that if Gore had won, the policy of containment would still be 'protecting the world'.

[hocndoc]

I'm a little late on answering, here, but...

I'm afraid that I have to agree with Mr. Cook: we would not be where we are today if Al Gore had been sworn in.

Al Gore would have surrendered by 10 am on 9-11-01. (In my opinion, of course.)